Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Filing 287

ORDER DENYING 256 , 272 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/26/2016. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

PHIGENIX, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-01238-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

9
10

GENENTECH INC,

[Re: ECF 256, 272]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file certain documents under

13
14

seal. ECF 256, 272. Defendant filed a motion to seal an exhibit in support of its Motion for

15

Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on Inadequate Written Description and Anticipation. ECF

16

256. Plaintiff moved to seal portions of its memorandum regarding test results and a related

17

exhibit. ECF 272. For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED.

18
19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

20

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

22

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

23

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

24

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

25

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

26

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

27

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

28

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in

1

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79 -

2

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

3

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

4

sealable.” Id.

5

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declaration in support thereof,

6
7

if any. For both these motions, Plaintiff is the party who designated these documents to be

8

confidential but the Court finds that Plaintiff has not articulated compelling reasons to seal these

9

exhibits or the designated portions. General conclusory assertions regarding confidentiality
interests are insufficient. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

below:

12

A.
ECF 256
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of
Matthew A. Chivvis in support
of Genentech’s Motion for
Summary Judgment of
Invalidity Based on Inadequate
Written Description and
Anticipation

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

B.
ECF 272
Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Phigenix, Inc.’s Memorandum
Regarding Test Results,
highlighted portions at lines
13-15 on page 2, lines 3, 8-22,
27 on page 3; and lines 1-3,
10-14 on page 4.

24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit A to Phigenix, Inc.’s
Memorandum Regarding Test
Results

Description of Documents
Plaintiff has not filed a declaration in
support of sealing this exhibit.

Description of Documents

Court’s Order
DENIED.

Court’s Order

Plaintiff contends that the highlighted
DENIED.
portions contain confidential test data
obtained for litigation-related testing
purposes only. However, this is not a
compelling reason for sealing these
portions of the document. For example,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated why
disclosing litigation-related testing results
could harm Plaintiff’s competitiveness in
the marketplace. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
809 F.3d at 1097.
Plaintiff also argues that the entirety of
DENIED.
this exhibit should be sealed because this
relates to confidential test data obtained
for litigation-related testing purposes.
This reason is insufficient. See id.
2

1
2

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 256, 272 are DENIED. Under Civil

3
Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a
4
document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to
5
seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public
6
record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Dated: October 26, 2016
12
13

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3